Topic: DT and trust lists, curious what everyone else thinks on the subject - page 2. (Read 785 times)

It's still a good point though (other than the scamming part). If you don't trust someone's judgement, why would you apply to join a campaign managed by that someone?

I'd say anyone who thinks that way ("will this affect my signature earnings if I make this exclusion") shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the trust system but reality is probably the opposite - most of the trust lists are likely built on various backscratchings and bootlickings.

Thanks for a detailed response.

Most people are afraid to exercise their DT power although there are people who uses it to bully others just as you said without proper and adequate evidence to prove that such person deserved to be detrusted. DT like you already mentioned is to fight for the forum but then would someone who have a minor vote go detrust someone who has a higher vote, for example; a DT2 detrusting a DT1 which the DT2 has only 1 vote and do you think what would be the opposite reaction to the DT1 member?
To me I think there would be a retaliation on the more superior member even though he doesn't immediately react to your actions but I know  definitely he would surely detrust such user with any slight mistake and then the person is off from DT power except such person has more votes to come back again to DT.

Reasons why I add someone to my trust list:

 - They are an established member of the community, who:
 - Hasn't scammed anybody
 - Has a trust list that I agree at least 70% with, and
 - Has written several (at least 10 or so) valuable*, referenced feedbacks (positive or negative)

Reasons why I distrust someone on my trust list:

 - They are padding their trust list by including accounts that left them positive feedback.
 - They are on DT because someone else added them to pad their trust rating.
 - They are coordinating manipulation of the trust system with other accounts.
 - I suspect they have secret alt accounts.
 - Their trust feedback is mostly unreferenced.
 - Some of their feedback is outdated, no longer correct, or flat out wrong.
 - They have justified negative trust.


* valuable means it provides a clear indication as to why a user may or may not be trustworthy


The newest account I have in my trusted list is almost 5 years old... I think an account needs at least 3-4 years of regular activity before I can even begin to gauge if they should be on DT.

Let's say that I have learned many things from your discussion. Many people have made many comments here, but from the comments, everyone's attitudes have come out. I think I have learned a good aspect of this.

The point you bring up is really important because there is nothing that can happen like this. When a campaign manager is managing a campaign, people in that campaign don't want to open up because if they open up then they might get kicked out of the campaign, but I don't know if that's happened. If this is the case then I think it will not be correct as there may be false growth which needs to be corrected. Whoever he is, he has to admit his mistake.

No, a member should not be on DT if they are clueless. Some have ended up on DT by virtue of a default and should not be there. Some members in the list are well into the minus/negative figure, nevertheless they are still DT. Being DT should mean at last adding some names to trust and distrust. No matter how much others might agree or disagree with it, at least they are demonstrating being active in taking a stand.

As for the trust list itself, there are a wide array of reasons and rationales for members adding and removing people from their trust list as well as adding a tilde ~ and a huge part of it has to be opinion. If one member concludes one thing and another concludes another, they are entitled to their opinion.

We all know and understand there is no one single formula to apply, we all take it in our stride as we see fit. It is true (as already mentioned), some members will not tag others in fear of retaliation but that should not stop DT or any other member from taking action they feel is correct.

What do you think this thread is about? Am I not reputable enough? Speak openly about anything you want on the trust system, I want opinions from everyone. The assholes, the scared to deaths, the high society, the losers, the everyone's. You can have an opinion without mentioning names if you're scared for whatever reason. You can PM me as well and share your fears I guess, although that will defeat the purpose.

I'll definitely reiterate that if you live in fear on this forum, you need to not be interested in DT as you will not use it correctly.

This topic is very dangerous and if the truth is told, we might speak against some people so let's be on the low key. For what we discovered here, small mistake by a newbie a tag is given so don't feel that security in the forum and the forum became a "survival of the fittest". There is no value and respect in the DT system again like before. There was a prestige in becoming a DT member but I don't think it is still there. Because some users disorganized the system by abusing the system. Though I am not a DT member but we are see things in the forum.

Personally I don't know much about the DT system, I don't know how to use the trust system yet but I know that it is not hard to use it if I want to. They system is not encouraging others to join. There was a time the people see the DT system as a "CARTEl" because of the ways things were done. To be a DT member was prestigious addition to a member in the forum but it is no more.

Yahoo tou really spoke well. DT would have allowed the citizens in this community to speak their minds in this board so that from there many things would have been corrected but they scared the citizens to speak because they the newbies and the weak minded users are afraid to speak because they don't know where the red tag or the neutral tag would come. So foe that they have to be muted and distance themselves in this board. I know some of the DT members in this forum that are not making any comment in this board probably they don't like how things are done. That is a personal reason though.

As I said if really this issue is to be discussed massively, drama will be created so let it be like this and let build the system for all. Though punishment will still be given to those who came to scam, deceive and other severe offence and the punishment are differences.

If really we want to make things right. A reputable member should create a thread for people to come and speak their mind about the system and correct some things then everything will be alright. That is my suggestion.

That was the reply to Plaguedeath's comment.

I totally get what yahoo62278 is trying to point out. These trust lists and distrust lists are closely tied to trust feedback (whether it’s positive, neutral, or negative). Without trust from others elevating you to DT1, your feedback doesn’t hold much weight for most users.  So, if someone on DT1 is known for giving out “inaccurate feedback” that can damage another member’s reputation,  it reflects poorly on the entire DT network and undermines its purpose.

Honestly, that can be even more detrimental than scamming, as it can ripple through and affect the whole forum.

Isn’t the main role of DT to prevent or reduce scams? Feedback should ideally be reserved for actual cases of scams or clear violations. Inaccurate feedback risks unjustly labeling someone as untrustworthy, weakening the integrity of the system.

No i'm talking about ~ users. The list is empty but they trust 30 or so users. They are only half participating and only participating in what benefits them.

Bottom line, if you're here only to make money and scared to death to tell someone fuck off, you shouldn't even care about DT. Just go on about your day and earn your money without the politics.

You are definitely  confusing trust or distrust lists with negative, positive and neutral tags. Is that what the OP meant?

That would make it impossible to exclude abusers.

What part of List the users who you trust to have good trust ratings and good trust lists is not clear?

I was talking about it in general. I was just trying to understand what is in their mind who has only trust inclusion and no exclusion. As LoyceV already mentioned, people fear retaliatory exclusion. Some of them just don't want to get a DT exclusion by giving them a ~. I do not have a trust list and I rely on default trust. So, I am not in that category that you were talking about.

Apart from that, a lot of people do not really understand the purpose of Feedback and the DT voting system. Even OG forum members often use them incorrectly. Either they do not understand it well, or just using it incorrectly by knowing it.

Leaving inaccurate feedback is essentially the same as scamming, as it abuses the power entrusted to a DT member. A DT feedback can be crucial for an account, influencing how others perceive them, even if it's just a neutral tag. This feedback system should be objective and not driven by personal feelings, or it risks compromising the freedom of speech.

The trust system is complex because there are no clear-cut rules for who gets included on a user’s trust or distrust list. It often becomes personal, leading to biases based on whether we know or dislike the user. Personally, if I were to make a judgment and add someone to my distrust list, and they happened to run a signature campaign, I wouldn’t join it as a way to stand by my principles.

Having my trust list means that I completely trust the people who are on it. This list cannot be created instantly; it takes time to analyze not only the posts of people we trust but all their behavior on the forum. Get to know these people. In the same way, it is always better to put a tilde in your list of people who are difficult to trust than to draw emotionally negative tags.
I do not see anything reprehensible if someone does not trust someone; probably this person will have reasons for mistrust. It is difficult to be good for everyone, so many people, so many opinions. Even in ordinary life, we have people with the same views and avoid those who are different from us.

This is a problem... maybe trust lists should be closed , then nobody would be able to see them. Certainly people would behave much differently and DT would be very different.

If you are only using the trust list for what benefits you, then you are not using the system correctly. You are not looking out for the best interests of the forum, and you probably don't need to be in the DT lottery. You should just empty your lists and not care about DT or trust. Least that's how I feel. Participate fully or not at all.

Look yahoo, even though some of you consider the forum earnings as pocket money, there are a lot of people who make their living with their signature income. Most of them care about every single step. This forum is full of good people, while there are some cowards. Let's say I do not trust your judgment for some reason, but I kept it inside but never dared to ~ you.

If you are another DT1 with a lot of people supporting you, and suddenly a Full Member, or a senior member distrusts your judgment, you may not say anything right now, but most people won't just forget that and move on. Some people do not want to create chaos or have a disagreement with people who have DT power. Even though the admin suggests using the feedback system for trade-related issues, the forum members often end up using it for simple disagreement.

Some people do not even agree with how the current DT system is working. A couple of OG forum members cleaned their trust list several times because of that. This DT system creates forum drama every other week. Some people find it disturbing. I feel like, a lot of people ignore the reputation board.

If a member like Ratimov could be destroyed just because of some disagreement and anger issue, then a lot like this is possible. Some just want to live their life and stay away from the drama and try to be friends with everyone.

Now, what's the correlation between distrust and scam? read.


Imagine a campaign manager run the campaign smoothly without any scam, but this user leave inaccurate feedback.

This mean the manager isn't scammer, but he deserved to be included in distrust list. What's wrong to participate in his campaign when he's not a scammer?

Excluding someone from your Trust list often ends up in a retaliatory exclusion.

I think Plaguedeath meant excluding the campaign manager from his Trust list.
For the sake of discussion: